Growing with LED

[daddyo]

#1 for sure, and Hick Ive heard people say "don't get your panties in a bunch" many times, its not meant to be taken literally of course.

*see hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

:holysheep: hXXp://www.manties.net
should help with the bunching.... :hubba:

 

[BBFan]

Hey guys.... SO this post just seems sooooo outta whack to me....?

How does someone that grows with an HPS know so much about yields with LEDs???? By reading from others?????

Some more factual info about LEDs showing that they outperform HPS:
From: High Times 2009 Master Growers Guide

A trial was contucted using a 90watt UFO against 3 different lights: 400watt MH, 400watt HPS, 600watt HPS.

Pics of entire article will be posted below for anyone to read the entire thing...

I will summarize to get the point out there... All variables were kept exactly the same only difference in conditions was the light being used. Also all cuttings were taken from the same mother.

Trial A: UFO vs 400watt MH winner: UFO yield was 12% more

Trial B: UFO vs 400watt HPS winner: HPS yield was 5% more*
* The plants "were markedly different potencies, with the LED plants producing much more resin." :holysheep:

Trial C: UFO vs 600watt HPS winner: HPS yield was 20% more*
* Resin production was again higher on the LED side. Also the grower noted that the money saved on power with the LED out weighs the high cost of the HPS even with the lower yield!! Also the plants on the LED side needed much less water.

Pics below

It's too bad this thread took a turn for the worst. Sometimes the written word can be easily misinterpreted without the inflections of the spoken word.

I honestly don't have an opinion on LED's. I assume the UFO used in the above experiments was a tri-color unit. What gets my panties all excited is the results regarding resin production. The above doesn't comment on the resin production versus the MH, only the HPS.

I assume that the LED's offer more light in the 425 nm / 6500 k / blue spectrum (correct me if I'm wrong here)- and that leads to more resin production. I've been reading alot lately regarding the impact of the cooler light spectrum and it's impact on resin production.

This test just adds to those conclusions.

 

[Hick]

:holysheep: hXXp://www.manties.net
should help with the bunching.... :hubba:

OMG!!... :rofl:..

I'm sorry too BBfan. My intentions were not meant to hurt anyones feelings.

 

[Mutt]

Just FYI you have to read those comparison reports very very carefully. they are comparing gram per watt. not over all yeild. The downfall to this comparison is that the UFO is going to be more efficient but cannot handle the large space a HID can handle. So i think comparing LEDs/CFLs/T5s/HIDs/overdriven flos pointless. It depends on the enviro./Space/ and other factors. I honestly from what i seen from others is that the cost of the UFO and yeild that it produces doesn't warrant a person with room like me to get one, but someone with more constraints a UFO would be perfect. As for me and following along many many many grow jounrals found that HID is still the way to go. but like CFLs Flos and others they do have there place.
But read those comparisons very carefully you'll find that gram per watt may be greater, but the high wattage of the HID makes for an overall bigger yeild if comaring 2 different light set-ups in the same area...watt per gram may be better but gram per area was decreased.
just what i have noticed over the past few years...not knocking the UFO just saying they word them a certain way to boost sales i never understood comparing gram/watt. i look at a whole 2'x2' area and which bulb got me the most bud outa that area. not oh this light did x amount of grams becuase how do you compare 100w to a 400w HID. 100w to 100w in a 2'x2' area would be a better comparison. Penetration as well into the canopy.
Its all in the comparison...i still think its a sales pitch and not quite there yet. becuase yes it may have been 1/4 but HID intensity can get more area than the UFO. gram per wat is excellent and all, but area and canopy size is a factor IMO when comparing small grows it works out. but anything over 600w need to go to a HID or spend a fortune on a few UFOs...rather go with the HID. But if a dealer, i guess cost over yeild is better but in a personal op, yeild is what i'm after.

At no point did they tell the over all "take" from the grow just gram per watt. Which comparing 2 different wattage light systems and types isn't accurate IMO without giving us the total wieght at finish.

In three separate trials, a high-powered LED (prototypes of HID Hut's UFO) was run in side-by-side experiments-once against a 400-watt MH bulb, once against a 400-watt HPS bulb, and once against a 600-watt HPS bulb. These trials used exactly the same conditions on both sides of the fence. The plants were cuttings taken from a single mother; the medium and grow systems were the same; and the nutrients and atmospheric conditions were kept identical. The only variable was the lamp provided. And, as usual, the results varied.

In Trial A, the clones were placed in a three-by-six-foot box that was divided evenly in half. An ebb-and-flow table on each side shared the same grow medium and reservoir. In the end, the LED lamp yielded 12% more than its counterpart, the 400-watt MH.

In Trial B, similar systems again pitted the UFO against a 400-watt HPS, only this time the LED side took an extra week to finish. Some concern arose over stretching, as the clone grew to touch the UFO. This resulted in a decision to increase the blue diodes in a second prototype, and it may lead to an increase in wavelength for the red diodes, according to the manufacturer. In the end, the LED side yielded 5% less than the HPS side did.

However, it was reported in Trial B that there were markedly different potencies, with the LED plant producing much more resin. Speculation exists that the shortage of wavelengths aided in this process, as abnormal stresses have been known to increase the production of resin glands.

Final calculations taking into consideration the extra week of flowering time on the LED side found that in terms of grams yielded per kilowatt hour (KwH) consumed, the HPS yield was one-fourth that of the LED side.

In Trial C, the grower found similarities to both previous trials. While the LED yielded less than its counterpart, this test pushed the limits of the LED by pitting it against a stronger 600-watt HPS bulb. Resin production on this Cali-O strain was up after just four weeks of flowering, but in the end, the yield was around 20% less. However, the grower did note that the amount of money saved in electric costs compared against the costs of the 600-watt HPS was almost enough to offset the profits lost on yield. An interesting side note in this trial was that the plant on the LED side needed considerably less watering than the plant on the HPS side. It is possible that this is due to lower surface temperatures in the soil medium, or because the plant wasn't driven as hard and thus drank less.